If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

If you've been watching the game as long as you say you have, then you know the changes in the sport which favor the offense.

You would also consider the system Phil played in, his supporting cast, as well as the conditions at Giants Stadium.

Simms was one of the best bad weather QBs of all time imo...However I don't get why we need to build a case for Simms,I think we can all agree how much he meant to this franchise. I personally all things considered, era, style of the game, supporting cast think Eli has been every bit as important and great for this team...We just played the Packers...I wonder if they argue Rodgers vs Favre like this.

Because particularly in this case, stats most certainly don't tell the whole story. Completion percentages in Simms days were just not as high as they are today, in large part due to the rule changes since then.

All of the above are over 58 percent completions for their careers. Phil was at 55.4, which is also higher than a lot of good players. I just think stats are an Importent tool that I will always look at when analyzing players, like I said, they do not tell the whole story but to discount them completely seems like cutting of your nose to spit your face, but to each their own

[QUOTE=Roosevelt;593545]If you've been watching the game as long as you say you have, then you know the changes in the sport which favor the offense.

I do take those things into consideration, but do not think that means you can not use stats from that time period for arguments sake. There have been things that both players have dealt with, Eli has worked with a good amount of different players on the offense, has had the playing style of the offense change, and if you really want to get serious, the difference in the athletic abilities of players from the 80s to the 2000s, as well as the quality of the defenses from each time period. The argument to discount stats is just something I disagree with, would you buy a stock without looking at a companies history?

If you've been watching the game as long as you say you have, then you know the changes in the sport which favor the offense.

I do take those things into consideration, but do not think that means you can not use stats from that time period for arguments sake. There have been things that both players have dealt with, Eli has worked with a good amount of different players on the offense, has had the playing style of the offense change, and if you really want to get serious, the difference in the athletic abilities of players from the 80s to the 2000s, as well as the quality of the defenses from each time period. The argument to discount stats is just something I disagree with, would you buy a stock without looking at a companies history?

great point about the quality of the athletes in today's game compared to back then...it really is apples and oranges..both were great for us...people will defend the guy from their era.

great point about the quality of the athletes in today's game compared to back then...it really is apples and oranges..both were great for us...people will defend the guy from their era.

Thanks and you are correct that it is a hard comparison, and one that everyone is entitled to have. At the end of the day I'm just happy that both Simms and Manning were both Giants so we are able to have these discussions, it's never a bad thing when you are talking about two great players, especially when they play/played for the Giants!

Simms was one of the best bad weather QBs of all time imo...However I don't get why we need to build a case for Simms,I think we can all agree how much he meant to this franchise. I personally all things considered, era, style of the game, supporting cast think Eli has been every bit as important and great for this team...We just played the Packers...I wonder if they argue Rodgers vs Favre like this.

A good friend of mine is a Packers fan. They used to argue between Favre and Rodgers, but not over who is better. Rodgers used to get hated on because he sent Favre packing. Favre was worshiped in Green Bay. Football is a religion to the folks over there.

No one in Packer land was ever questioning whether or not Rodgers was great.

It is not perfect and may not even be better than the old rating system for qb, but at least it tries to take into account everything that goes into a play, and I do agree that there should be a different value associated with a screen pass that ends up a td or a throw that beats double coverage that turns into a td, don't you?

There really is no way to accurately relay a qb performance on paper, too many intangibles go into each play to accurately map out with stats, but they do play in important roll in the analysis of players. Some of the things that are hard to map out are; pass protection, if there was any miscommunication setting the play, if everyone heard, understood, and reacted correctly to audibles being called at the line, protection changes at the line, if routes are ran correctly, if a throwing lane is there, and then all of the things the defense are doing. The one thing that I dislike the most abut it is that it gives no credit to certain plays even if there were multiple offensive formations used in previous plays to set the d up for a simple screen, or a quick throw, something that takes advantage of the formations the d is using, and the rating system certainly has a problem with the way the analysis works, because it could be subjective to the person who is looking at each game.